Re: spamassassin ?

[Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk>]

On 09 Mar 2004, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > Perhaps this is drawing a red herring across the trail, but I can't help
> > wondering why more people don't use spamprobe in preference to
> > spamassassin. IME spamprobe is easier to set up and extremely effective.
> > I see only about 2 or 3 false negatives a day at most and no false
> > positives at all.
> 
> I don't know anything about spamprobe.  I think one reason people like
> spamassassin is that it has a mix of heuristic and learning (Bayesian)
> rules.  And you can add your own rules to the list, based on regular
> expressions.
> 
> As for the original question, I think the OP would have the same problem
> with spamprobe as with spamassassin-- it's really an exim problem.

Spamprobe is a Bayesian filter too. From the man page:

       SpamProbe operates on a different basis entirely.  Instead of
       using pattern matching and a  set  of  human  generated rules
       SpamProbe relies on a Bayesian analysis of the frequency of words
       used in spam and non-spam emails received by an individual
       person.  The process is completely automatic and tailors itself
       to the kinds of emails that each person receives.

AC
-- 
ac@acampbell.org.uk    ||  http://www.acampbell.org.uk
using Linux GNU/Debian ||  for book reviews, electronic 
Windows-free zone      ||  books and skeptical articles